Wouldn’t touch it, I have w/a lenses, IF I wanted another i would be one that has AF as well as MF why would anyone want to pay silly money for MF only

Sample images mean nothing, in magazines or on line, take the same shot with ten cameras and similar lenses, unless enlarged to A1 no one could see any difference in premium quality lenses.

MTF charts and other “lab” works mean nothing in the real world. I don’t take photographs in a lab

Aldo

You know I don’t care much for MF lenses but that doesn’t mean there isn’t application for them. Let me give you an example. Macro work couldn’t give a damn about AF, actually AF could be detrimental to serious macro work. I know this is not a macro lens, but Imagine you are trying to get the sharpest or best possible quality landscape and you have all day to shoot. Again AF wouldn’t really help much there, and if MF means I’ll get a better picture, I’ll take the MF any day over the AF. Just my 2 cents.

Color Crush

Thank you for being reasonable.

Just Me

You could manually focus an autofocus lens. :-/

Aldo

You could… but it wont be a zeiss =)

Just Me

¯_(ツ)_/¯

Steven Choi

I don’t think any photographers are buying this lens. Correctors are the most customers i believe with paying ridiculous price.

Not the same thing with the short throw of AF lenses. The fact is , for applications where you need precision and have time, MF is preferred over AF. Now if the price zeiss asks for their lenses are sensible or not is another matter.

Just Me

MF being preferred isn’t relevant. Having a longer throw for it is. You’re right.

fanboy fagz

yes, but an af lens can mf as well and how much of the times will you really need mf? I shoot weddings. I used to own the 105VR. used to do the ring shots in af and some closeup here and there, in AF. it did it well, mostly.ive since sold it as I dont use the lens often enough to juystify carrying it around.

now I use the 85mm 1.8d and extension tubes. I use MF and it fine for the 5 pictures I use MF with it for. and the rest of the day im shooting mf and nailing a lot of images that NO WAY IN HELL id get should I be using MF. and I had the 85 1.4 AIS which had great MF. its very difficult to use on people standing together and talking. and you waste a lot of time racking the focus to adjust minutely back and forth. its just a pita.

AF, lock, shoot, capture the moment.

PhilK

While you make some relevant points, there’s no point in expecting everyone to have the same priorities about how they shoot and what equipment suits them.

For many or even most landscape photographers, AF is probably largely superfluous, for example.

My issue with these lenses is the value – are they worth the premium in price, size, weight and lack of AF over similar Nikkor? Just as with typical Leica users, the way a person answers that question probably has a lot to do with how wealthy they are. 😉

The comparitive Nikon lens to this 25mm Milvus is the 24/1.4 Nikkor, which has a wider FOV, 30% smaller, 50% lighter, $400 cheaper (in the US) and has USM AF.

Aldo

You are absolutely right… thing is not everyone has the same needs

fanboy fagz

yes, but an af lens has both. try mf in even barely darkish situations. youre just shooting with hopes of nailing focus.

+1, I find it amazing that people are pointing out that some only need MF when as has been stated you simply flick a switch between MF and AF and any manufacturer dumb enough not to offer AF is killing their own market.

It is like having two hotels next to each other, one takes credit cards and cash, the other JUST cash, I know which one will go bust.

El Aura

I find it amazing that you can keep pretending not hearing the arguments about the relative difficulties of manual focussing AF lenses.

I shoot everything from sports to wildlife, I would no more buy a MF ONLY note I said ONLY lens that have a video camera that shoots tape.

Speed, convenience and when you may rarely need MF switch to MF

fanboy fagz

thats it exactly. when you may need it, you can mf. like using extension tubes for macro. other then that AF is what ill use almost always. look at the zeiss snobs trying to downplay how bad MF really is. I was there. I owned the 85 1.4 AIS. its a ridiculous amount of effort and wasting time and a lot of missed focus. its terrible. lets not forget that ridiculous price tag. compare it vs the sigma 24 1.4 ART. I think the difference is negligible.

I never said MF is bad just that it is POINTLESS to have JUST MF, lenses should offer both MF and AF and allow the USER to chose

El Aura

And talking to you also seems pointless as you keep pretending that manual focus on a AF lens is as precise and easy as on an MF lens.

Color Crush

That’s a lot of “means nothing”. I wonder what matters in your photography, probably “oh boy the out of focus areas are smooth.”

fanboy fagz

or, I can be a snob and pay an absurd amount of money for a manual focus lens and say to my friends look its a zeiss, but I cant show you amazing pictures from it because theyre all out of focus .it was too dark for me to focus properly although my camera could focus if it had an af nikon lens..

Matt Comerford

someone call the waaaaaaambulance!

fanboy fagz

ahh, you got me good..youre right. lets all buy the zeiss and manual focus our way to bliss. although we wont have images to show for as most wont be in focus.

Matt Comerford

cuz landscape photogs really need autofocus amirite?

Color Crush

If you’re worrying about your friends while shooting, it’s not for you.

The final image matters. Photos taken with Zeiss lenses aren’t appreciably better than lenses costing half as much.

Color Crush

Zeiss is for that extra bit of special. It’s not worlds better. But some of us appreciate the extra character. If it’s all the same to you, then it’s not for you. But if cost is everything, then you’re missing out on very special glass from many different brands. Rent and try some of the glass you think isn’t worth it, your opinion may change.

Just Me

To me, seeing it with your eyes is special. Everything else is a lesser imitation.

One of the problems with photography is, you can never capture the entire experience. The initial pleasure of seeing a scene worth capturing; things occurring before and after the capture; attendant smells and sounds; the thoughts all these things conjure in you. Nothing can capture that.

All that to say, knowing you have a particular lens can have that same effect. When you put that Zeiss lens on your camera, you just know it’s gonna be an “extra bit of special” and so, for you, it is.

C**p, I have put this to the test on seven occasions with people who believe that.

In two clubs we shot similar bodies and focal lengths, I did it as way back as slide and as recently as three months ago.

Five members shot three Canon and two Nikon FF camera bodies, 720, D4s, 5D etc, all fitted with either Sigma art, my 14-24 Nikkor, a Zeiss Milvus 50mm, a Canon 16-35 and a 12-24 (I think) NO ONE even the camera owners when they were all printed to A3+ could say which camera lens combo took which

You see appreciable difference jumping from low to high level. From high to higher, it’s the land of diminishing returns. You pay a lot more to get little bit more. Some may find that little bit significant and some may not. They may be buying because they are snobs or maybe they actually are enlightened. Who are we to judge?

Just Me

I got so tired of writing “in my opinion” or “to me…”, I don’t do it anymore. Instead, my moniker is intended to convey that.

lol, view their portfolios and you see why they don’t see the difference with Zeiss glass.

Adam Fo

I don’t think I’ve ever used a wide angle in AF for 25 years making a living from photography. Perhaps because I worked as a focus puller for years. For telephotos it’s a different story.

Abiatha Swelter

f/8 and be there.

saywhatuwill

$2300+ for a manual focus lens. What do they think we use, Leica M bodies?

Photoman

I have the Milvus 50mm F1.4 and I love the images from the lens. When I was looking for a high end 50 it was between the Milvus and Sigma Art lens and I chose the Milvus because I preferred the colors and bokeh. The MF will put most people off I understand.

Color Crush

I call it my Paint Brush lens. Gives images the character of a painting.

Max

Wow.

ZoetMB

So does reducing resolution and color depth. Very easy to do in Photoshop.

Color Crush

I like to get it right in camera. Software will never replace lens character. It’s like saying the iPhone portrait mode has better bokeh than DSLRs.

Just Me

Ummm… No. Apples and oranges.

RayEames

I have it too and shooting old empty structures and houses against vast landscapes… incredible detail and color. The prints have received rave reviews.

Aldo

Not sure why people like the aesthetics of the Zeiss glass so much. I must be either too old or too young to appreciate.

Matt Comerford

I use my zeiss glass for the performance (15mm f2.8) not aesthetics.

Just Me

What performance? The output isn’t appreciable different.

Matt Comerford

Zero distortion and the two aspheric elements for sharp edge to edge points of light in wide open astrophotography images. (re 15mm)

The current design of Zeiss lenses (it’s not always been that way, remember Zeiss has been at this for a while) was actually created by a dedicated industrial design firm, who are so proud of it that they’ve made a web site about it:

The idea is apparently to evoke the idea of a “light funnel” (whatever that may be – their words). In my personal opinion the Milvus lenses look better on Canon bodies who tend to be as smooth, plain, and elegantly curved as them. Nikon bodies are more structured, angled, instrument-like.

PhilK

Yes, the Canon’s have continuous curves, as well as annoying non-differentiated control-surfaces that feel lousy on your fingers. 😉

As for a Canon DSLR’s ‘elegance’ – whoever was in charge of elegance must have been on vacation when they designed that horribly ugly 1DX II pentaprism housing. 😉

If you’re talking about the aesthetics of the images produced, I suggest you rent one and see for yourself. Having seen a few images you’ve posted here it seems you’re after a “look” that’s different from what I’m after. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd13b257b6d01cb9cc6b1620343443126dbde5236cf69d09cd2310aba0759d69.jpg If Contax had continued as a company and produced a digital version of the G2, I would be shooting that and not Nikon. Wouldn’t have to give it ANY thought if they’d come back with one. I’d sell all my Nikon gear and buy a into that system. Attached is an image made using the Contax G2 with 45mm Planar shot at f/8 (I know YOU like f/11, but some of us know how to focus and can use wider apertures). Anyway, I used Ilford FP4 film developed in Edwal FG-7 1:20. I made the exposure in 1996. Recently I used a 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikko on my Df to copy the negative, then used a combo of Silver FX Pro and Lightroom to work up what you see here. It probably looks like any other photo as much is lost by the time it gets on the Web, but you’ll get the idea.

Aldo

Just the physical aspect of the lens… Im sure the optical qualities are great like all who swear by them say.

sickheadache

Zeiss Proud! Does it come with turbo charge? A Sunroof?

Derryck

No need for turbo charger seems to use some LOX propellant, but for the price that sunroof ..

I already flagged it. Use down arrow in the side to find options to flag.

Steven Choi

Who is buying this sort of manual focus junky? Why are they keep making manual focus lense?

nicolaie

Nikon and Canon won’t allow them to make Af lenses, only Sony

Henning

It’s probably the other way around. Sony does not allow Zeiss to make AF Lenses for other brands than Sony.

Michiel953

When were you born?

dabug91

I love how this untidy picture also serves to make the lens look pretty meh. =]

ToastyFlake

That does look like poo.

PhilippeC

Well saying that AF lens can also work as MF lens is not exactly right:
– Nearly all modern AF lens have a very short focus stroke, especially for wide angle lenses.
– Beside this operating an AF lens in MF often does not give you a smooth motion of the focus ring (nothing to do with my old Nikkor AI or Pentax 67 lenses!), which can be quite uncomfortable at close distances.
So I would believe this type of manual lenses are only meaningful for specific photo applications e.g. landscape, studio … or for video.
Then the Zeiss price is another story …

Adam Fo

OK, I went and had a look. The MTF of the G-Master at 24mm is exceptionally good. Zeiss designers excelled themselves.